Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:19 pm

Kammekor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:11 pm

When a kid has a serious typical kid's disease, and the hospitals are more than full, the fact it won't die of COVID is not going to help the kid.

I will quote Prof Ladhani in response to that

“Many of the children who die of Covid are very, very vulnerable and very serious underlying conditions and life-limiting conditions, such as severe neurodisability,” Prof Ladhani said.

“It is really sad that they get Covid and then succumb to the infection but these children in any other time would have been vulnerable to many other illnesses and infections.

“If flu was around or RSV was around, it’s possible that many of these children would have got that infection and succumbed to that infection.

“Because Covid was the only virus around, it was the only thing that they’re going to succumb to.”

Basically those poor kids were going to die anyhow

Kammekor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:27 pm

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:19 pm

Kammekor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:11 pm

When a kid has a serious typical kid's disease, and the hospitals are more than full, the fact it won't die of COVID is not going to help the kid.

I will quote Prof Ladhani in response to that

“Many of the children who die of Covid are very, very vulnerable and very serious underlying conditions and life-limiting conditions, such as severe neurodisability,” Prof Ladhani said.

“It is really sad that they get Covid and then succumb to the infection but these children in any other time would have been vulnerable to many other illnesses and infections.

“If flu was around or RSV was around, it’s possible that many of these children would have got that infection and succumbed to that infection.

“Because Covid was the only virus around, it was the only thing that they’re going to succumb to.”

Basically those poor kids were going to die anyhow

Those are not typical kid's diseases I referred to. I was talking about common diseases like Chickenpox, Whooping cough, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Rotavirus, etc etc which can turn really bad with kids and need urgent hospitalization. When the hospitals are overloaded with people from other age groups suffering from covid the fact the kid won't die from covid isn't going to help the kid.

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:17 pm

Random Dude wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:01 pm

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 2:49 pm

Random Dude wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 2:33 pm

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 2:05 pm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/1 ... two-years/

Biggest misstep/mistake of our generation - covid lockdowns

All Chicken Licken types who supported this crap should be ashamed

Where I was during the lockdowns, it was never about the healthiest in society, it was about protecting the elderly, diabetic, obese, asthmatic, cancer sufferers etc... probably around 50 percent of the population. And it was about ensuring the already stressed hospital system wouldn't be overwhelmed.

Could have and should have been that the unhealthy shelter while the economies remained open.

There is already evidence suggesting the global effect of the lockdowns will cause more illness, death and suffering than covid did

So you'd suggest a large percentage of adults shelter at home while their kids go to school - assuming there were enough teachers, bus drivers etc not in the high risk group - and then those kids and teachers go home to their vulnerable parents after school?

How long do you think that would work before the kids infected their parents?

Doesn't really matter - If we look at countries without lockdowns - the Swedes being one example - with one of the lowest death rates in Europe and no lockdowns

It has been demonstrated that harsh restrictions made no difference in beating the virus - just compromised the lives of billions

The world copied China, and it didn't do anybody any good unless you held shares in some corpos that beniffited

Random Dude wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:37 pm

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:17 pm

Random Dude wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:01 pm

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 2:49 pm

Random Dude wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 2:33 pm

Where I was during the lockdowns, it was never about the healthiest in society, it was about protecting the elderly, diabetic, obese, asthmatic, cancer sufferers etc... probably around 50 percent of the population. And it was about ensuring the already stressed hospital system wouldn't be overwhelmed.

Could have and should have been that the unhealthy shelter while the economies remained open.

There is already evidence suggesting the global effect of the lockdowns will cause more illness, death and suffering than covid did

So you'd suggest a large percentage of adults shelter at home while their kids go to school - assuming there were enough teachers, bus drivers etc not in the high risk group - and then those kids and teachers go home to their vulnerable parents after school?

How long do you think that would work before the kids infected their parents?

Doesn't really matter - If we look at countries without lockdowns - the Swedes being one example - with one of the lowest death rates in Europe and no lockdowns

It has been demonstrated that harsh restrictions made no difference in beating the virus - just compromised the lives of billions

The world copied China, and it didn't do anybody any good unless you held shares in some corpos that beniffited

Beating the virus was probably never going to happen. What lockdowns did achieve was buying the world time to develop a vaccine and get enough people vaxxed so that enough people, while they might get sick, wouldn't need hospital care and so wouldn't crash the health system. I'd say given the circumstances that was as good a result as could be expected.

And the world copied China? No, they didn't.

As soon as Wuhan was overwhelmed with sick and dying people and the world saw how serious covid could be, China went all out to contain it and implored the rest of us to take it seriously, but the rest of the world chose to ignore it. Italy got hammered by it and still the west chose to ignore it. It spread like wildfire through the US and on from there and we still ignored it. And now here we are.

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:47 pm

Random Dude wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:37 pm

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:17 pm

Random Dude wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:01 pm

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 2:49 pm

Could have and should have been that the unhealthy shelter while the economies remained open.

There is already evidence suggesting the global effect of the lockdowns will cause more illness, death and suffering than covid did

So you'd suggest a large percentage of adults shelter at home while their kids go to school - assuming there were enough teachers, bus drivers etc not in the high risk group - and then those kids and teachers go home to their vulnerable parents after school?

How long do you think that would work before the kids infected their parents?

Doesn't really matter - If we look at countries without lockdowns - the Swedes being one example - with one of the lowest death rates in Europe and no lockdowns

It has been demonstrated that harsh restrictions made no difference in beating the virus - just compromised the lives of billions

The world copied China, and it didn't do anybody any good unless you held shares in some corpos that beniffited

Beating the virus was probably never going to happen. What lockdowns did achieve was buying the world time to develop a vaccine and get enough people vaxxed so that enough people, while they might get sick, wouldn't need hospital care and so wouldn't crash the health system. I'd say given the circumstances that was as good a result as could be expected.

And the world copied China? No, they didn't.

As soon as Wuhan was overwhelmed with sick and dying people and the world saw how serious covid could be, China went all out to contain it and implored the rest of us to take it seriously, but the rest of the world chose to ignore it. Italy got hammered by it and still the west chose to ignore it. It spread like wildfire through the US and on from there and we still ignored it. And now here we are.

Hardly "ignored" considering half the world was locked down 16 weeks into 2022

And despite some early peaks the non lockdown nations ultimately fared better overall than the non lockdown nations

I have had a consistent tune since the beginning - let the infirm and at risk shelter and those who are healthy - or deem themselves to be healthy - carry on their lives

Instead here we are - world is in the early stages of a self inflicted global recession/depression for the ages

Random Dude wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 4:04 pm

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:47 pm

Random Dude wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:37 pm

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:17 pm

Random Dude wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:01 pm

So you'd suggest a large percentage of adults shelter at home while their kids go to school - assuming there were enough teachers, bus drivers etc not in the high risk group - and then those kids and teachers go home to their vulnerable parents after school?

How long do you think that would work before the kids infected their parents?

Doesn't really matter - If we look at countries without lockdowns - the Swedes being one example - with one of the lowest death rates in Europe and no lockdowns

It has been demonstrated that harsh restrictions made no difference in beating the virus - just compromised the lives of billions

The world copied China, and it didn't do anybody any good unless you held shares in some corpos that beniffited

Beating the virus was probably never going to happen. What lockdowns did achieve was buying the world time to develop a vaccine and get enough people vaxxed so that enough people, while they might get sick, wouldn't need hospital care and so wouldn't crash the health system. I'd say given the circumstances that was as good a result as could be expected.

And the world copied China? No, they didn't.

As soon as Wuhan was overwhelmed with sick and dying people and the world saw how serious covid could be, China went all out to contain it and implored the rest of us to take it seriously, but the rest of the world chose to ignore it. Italy got hammered by it and still the west chose to ignore it. It spread like wildfire through the US and on from there and we still ignored it. And now here we are.

Hardly "ignored" considering half the world was locked down 16 weeks into 2022

And despite some early peaks the non lockdown nations ultimately fared better overall than the non lockdown nations

I have had a consistent tune since the beginning - let the infirm and at risk shelter and those who are healthy - or deem themselves to be healthy - carry on their lives

Instead here we are - world is in the early stages of a self inflicted global recession/depression for the ages

When I say ignored it I'm talking about when the virus was first spreading and there was a chance to contain it. There was a football world cup (or something) in Europe and it was tourist season and so there was no way anyone was going to take measures to try to stop the spread - and I don't really blame them, even though scientists told us what to expect and we'd seen it happen in China it's still hard to imagine it actually happening to you until it does happen.
But even then when it was spreading like crazy it was effectively ignored. People refused to even wear a mask. They refused to social distance, when half the world was saying WTF are you idiots doing places like Florida were allowing mass spring break parties and the like.

When you say we should have "- let the infirm and at risk shelter and those who are healthy - or deem themselves to be healthy - carry on their lives" ... you still haven't said how that could possibly work.

RE the self inflicted recession... when you have a pandemic rip through the world it's like any other natural disaster, the economy is going to suffer regardless, all anyone can do is try to minimise the damage as best they can.

Professor Johan Giesecke, who first recruited Tegnell during his own time as state epidemiologist, used a rare interview last week to argue that the Swedish people would respond better to more sensible measures. He blasted the sort of lockdowns imposed in Britain and Australia and warned a second wave would be inevitable once the measures are eased.

“The Swedish Government decided early in January that the measures we should take against the pandemic should be evidence based. And when you start looking around at the measures being taken by different countries, you find very few of them have a shred of evidence-base,” he said.

Giesecke, who has served as the first Chief Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Control and has been advising the Swedish Government during the pandemic, told the UnHerd website there was “almost no science” behind border closures and school closures and social distancing and said he looked forward to reviewing the course of the disease in a year’s time.

“I think that the difference between countries will be quite small in the end,” he said. “I don’t think you can stop it. It’s spreading. It will roll over Europe no matter what you do.”

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:36 pm
Those are mainly things kids are vaccinated against from a young age - and I have never heard of a kid being hospitalized for chickenpox - you are reaching a little

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:36 pm Also, in non lockdown countries it didn't happen that hospitals were any more overcrowded than non lockdown countries so your point is null imo

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 4:21 pm


Except the difference wasn't that small - Sweden fared MUCH better than lockdown states

Kammekor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 5:22 pm

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:36 pm
Those are mainly things kids are vaccinated against from a young age - and I have never heard of a kid being hospitalized for chickenpox - you are reaching a little

You conveniently ignore the fact children get sick of other causes than covid, and then need treatment in the hospital. When that treatment is not available becuase healthcare is overwhelmed, the fact children do generally not die of covid is of no importance for that specific kid.

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:36 pm Also, in non lockdown countries it didn't happen that hospitals were any more overcrowded than non lockdown countries so your point is null imo

I have not yet seen any study comparing two countries with a similar healthcare system, with a similar capacity, with similar living conditions, one in lockdown, the other not in lockdown, showing the same peaks / overcrowding in the not locked down country. There are so many factors determining is healthcare is overwhelmed or not, a lockdown (assuming it is effective) is just one of them.

Kammekor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 5:22 pm
You conveniently ignore the fact children get sick of other causes than covid, and then need treatment in the hospital. When that treatment is not available becuase healthcare is overwhelmed, the fact children do generally not die of covid is of no importance for that specific kid.